Why isn’t my Vitamin D working?

vitamind

Q. When I saw my doctor for my annual physical, he did a blood test for vitamin D and it came back deficient. Although live in Southern California, I tend to avoid the sun and keep covered when I am out in it. But my daily multivitamin contains 1,000 IU of vitamin D.  My doctor recommended adding another 1,000 IU to that. My question is, why didn’t the vitamin D in my multivitamin work? 

A. When you are deficient in vitamin D, it can take a surprisingly high dose of oral vitamin D to correct it. (Exposure to sunlight is much more efficient .) My guess is that the 1,000 IU in your multivitamin simply wasn’t enough to dig you out of the hole you’d dug yourself into, thanks to your diligent avoidance of UV rays.

But 2,000 IU may not be enough either. Effective protocols for treating vitamin D deficiency often involve taking 10,000 IU per day for 2-3 months. Fortunately, high doses of vitamin D are quite safe.

Hopefully, your doctor will order another blood test to check your vitamin D levels again before too long. If they haven’t moved (which is fairly likely), he may suggest a higher dose or even give you an injection.

Once you get your vitamin D levels up where they should be, 1,000 to 2000 IU per day should be more than enough to keep you there.

 

Is canned fish the ideal source of calcium?

sardine_can_icon_by_yamshing-d578pmy[1]In a Nutrition Diva podcast on the best sources of calcium, I wrote:

“Fish such as sardines and canned salmon are great sources of calcium because they contain tiny bones that are so soft you’d never notice them but are rich in calcium. As a bonus, these fish are also among the few natural food sources of vitamin D [which helps your body absorb and use that calcium.]”

A 3 oz can of salmon or sardines can provide up to 25% of your daily calcium requirement and 100% of your vitamin D–not to mention a healthy dose of omega-3 fatty acids.

But not always. Continue reading “Is canned fish the ideal source of calcium?” >

How much Vitamin D is Safe?

Q. I’ve read a lot about the health benefits of Vitamin D. But isn’t there also a limit of how much Vitamin D I should supplement? Is there a danger or limit that avoids a possible toxic amount?

A. The Institute of Medicine recently doubled the safe upper limit (UL) for vitamin D from 2000 IU to 4000 IU. That’s still quite a bit lower than the 10,000+ IU a day that some vitamin D researchers recommend. The IOM tends to be rather conservative and research suggests that 10,000 IU a day is unlikely to cause problems.  But I think the IOM may be trying to provide a counter-balance to what some see as “irrational exuberance” being displayed by some vitamin D aficionados. Continue reading “How much Vitamin D is Safe?” >

How much sunshine do you need to get your Vitamin D?

 

UPDATE: June 2, 2014: There are now a couple of smart-phone apps that are MUCH easier to use than the cool but somewhat clumsy calculator described in my original post!! 

For iOS: D VitaMeter
For Android: Opti-D Time Calculator

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing lately about people not getting enough vitamin D.  Deficiency is quite common–especially among kids, the elderly, and those with dark skin. And a growing list of diseases and conditions are being linked with vitamin D deficiency. (See also Your Brain on Vitamin D)

Exposure to the sun, without sunscreen, causes your skin to produce vitamin D naturally.

How much sun does it take to satisfy your vitamin D requirements?

If you’ve read anything about this, you’ve probably seen some vague guidelines, recommending “a few minutes every day.” But these recommendations are far too general to be useful. The amount of sun you need to meet your vitamin D requirements varies hugely depending on your location, your skin type, the time of year, the time of day, and even the atmospheric conditions.

A Cool Tool: The vitamin D/UV calculator

Scientists at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research have devised a calculator that will take all those factors into consideration and estimate how many minutes of exposure you need for your skin to produce 25 mcg (the equivalent of 1,000 International Units) of vitamin D.

It’s a very cool tool and the best I’ve seen so far. Be forewarned: It’s not the most user-friendly interface and its very easy to enter the wrong information, which makes your results misleading. But once you get past the technicalities, it’s very interesting to see how much the answers change when you vary the input.

Here are some tips to help you get good results

1. Unless you live in one of a few European or African cities listed as options, you’ll need to determine your latitude and longitude.  A GPS device will tell you your lat/long. You can also find this information here.  VERY IMPORTANT: The program reads all latitudes as N and all longitudes as E. If your latitude is 39 S, enter -39.  If your longitude is 76 W, enter -76. (It took me forever to figure out this quirk!) Also, be sure to click the radio button next to your latitude and longitude entries. It is not automatically selected when you fill in these values.

2. You also need to estimate your complexion, and the options include both “blond” and “pale,” which is a little confusing. (Maybe it makes more sense to Norwegians.) Basically, the six categories are arranged from lightest (pale) to darkest (black).  Make your best guess based on that. I have dark eyes and hair so I chose “darker caucasian.”

3. Enter the time of day you are going out in the sun, expressed as UTC (aka Greenwich Mean Time).  Here is a converter that will convert local time into UTC. The calculator uses a 24 hour clock, so hours from 1pm to midnight are expressed as 13 to 24.  There is also an option that lets you choose “about midday.”  If you enter an actual time, be sure to click the radio button next to your start time. It doesn’t move automatically when you fill in these values.

4. Next, enter how much cloud cover there is.  If you choose “overcast,” you can also enter in the UV Index from your local newspaper’s weather page and the program will estimate the thickness of the cloud deck. Again, be sure to click the radio button if you choose this option. (Disclaimer: I played around with this and couldn’t see that changing the UV index had any effect…)

5. You’re almost done! Next, the calculator wants to know the thickness of the ozone layer. I have to admit, I was unable to find a simple resource to help with this one.  Unless you live under the ozone hole or have some other way of knowing that the ozone is particularly thick or thin where you are, I suggest just setting this one to medium.

6. Find your altitude. Some GPS devices can tell you your altitude, as can Google Earth or topographical maps. But the easiest way may be to simply google “altitude of [your town]”. Remember to convert it to kilometers.  One kilometer = about 3300 feet.

7. Choose your surface.

Here’s what my form looks like all filled in:

UVcalc.jpg

When I submit it for calculation, I learn that here in Baltimore, on a cloudless July day at noon, I need to spend just 5 minutes with my face, hands, and arms exposed to produce 25 mcg (1,000 IU) of vitamin D.  If it were November, I’d need to stay out about half an hour. If it were November, and I were black, it would take an hour and a half. You get the idea.  For most of the year, “a few minutes” of sun would not be enough for me to make enough vitamin D.

Keep in mind that these exposure times are considered enough to maintain healthy vitamin D status. if you are starting out with a vitamin D deficiency, you might need more.

One last thought: Unprotected sun exposure also increases the risk of skin cancer and premature aging of the skin. After you’ve gotten your daily “dose,” I recommend applying a good sunscreen!

Your Brain on Vitamin D

brain.jpgOur collective crush on Vitamin D shows no sign of tapering off.  Researchers just published new results from a 6-year study showing that seniors with low vitamin D levels are 60% more likely to suffer from substantial cognitive decline than those with adequate levels of the nutrients, raising “important new possibilities for treatment and prevention.” (Archives of Internal Medicine.)

Vitamin D supplementation is presumably what they’re talking about. (Is there anyone left out there that’s NOT taking vitamin D?)

But brain aging seems to be a very difficult nut to crack.  One by one, other “important new possibilities for treatment and prevention” of cognitive decline have failed to pan out:  Fish oil, crossword puzzles, exercise, ginkgo biloba…despite high hopes, none turned out to make a significant difference.

Will vitamin D be the breakthrough we’ve all been hoping for?

Could raising low blood levels with supplements do the trick or is there something about the lifestyle of people with higher vitamin D levels that’s helping them stay healthier? Maybe higher vitamin D levels indicate that they spend more time outdoors; perhaps it’s a marker for people who are more active? Or simply healthier?

We’re all so enamored of vitamin D right now, it’s hard to be objective. But, as Tim Byers points out in an editorial for the American Journal of Epidemiology, we’ve been similarly enthralled (and ultimately disillusioned) with other nutrients in the past.  (Anticancer Vitamins du Jour–The ABCED’s So Far.)

I don’t mean to be a Debbie Downer. For all of our sakes, I hope that vitamin D turns out to be the superstar that we hope it is. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re ultimately led back to the same conclusion: There’s just no way to put a healthy lifestyle, diet, and environment (plus good genes) into a pill.

Vitamin D: Now I’m a believer

One of the most electrifying sessions I attended at Andrew Weil’s Nutrition and Health Conference in April was one given by Dr. Michael Holick on Vitamin D.  Dr Holick is a well-known, even notorious, name in nutrition research circles. He’s been insisting for years that vitamin D deficiency is far more wide-spread and dangerous than anyone realizes and he has a reputation (which he himself promotes!) of being a bit of a kook.

A few years ago, he was famously booted from the Boston University dermatology faculty for making heretical statements about the benefits of moderate UV exposure (which stimulates the production of vitamin D in the skin) and has been chided and derided by the dermatology establishment ever since.

I thought I had a pretty good idea of what to expect from Holick’s presentation; it would be all about the miraculous powers of vitamin D and the dire consequences of deficiency.  I tend to take these sort of Wonder Nutrient presentations with a grain of salt.  When you spend your whole life researching a single compound–like many of these researchers do, I think you can start to lose your sense of perspective. As the old saying goes: When you’re holding a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

The evidence is always reasonably compelling. And by the end of every Wonder Nutrient presentation, you find yourself thinking, I really should start taking that, and I should probably start recommending it to my patients, too. The problem is that after a few dozen of these presentations, you (and your patients) have a list of 40 nutrients that you “need” to be taking.

It’s probably a backlash against too many Wonder Nutrients but, as many of you know, I’m not all that big on dietary supplements. Whenever possible, I think it’s better to meet your nutritional needs with actual foods. I myself take very few supplements.  And I have become immune to the persuasive power of Wonder Nutrient lectures.

And yet, after hearing Dr. Holick’s presentation, I literally stopped on my way back to the hotel to buy a bottle of vitamin D (1000IU).

First, I’ve gotta say, if you ever have a chance to see this guy speak, don’t miss it. All 1,200 of us in the audience were blown away (300 slides in 50 minutes). But it wasn’t just his over-the-top presentation that made me break my ban on Wonder Nutrients.  It was the cumulative impact of the data.

To me, the most compelling reason why vitamin D is really in a category of its own, and why most people need far more vitamin D than they can ever get through their diet, is this: Our bodies were not designed to meet our vitamin D requirements through dietary sources–we evolved to produce vitamin D in our skin, when the sun hits it.

That’s why people who originally lived further from the equator have lighter skin–it allows more UV rays to penetrate, which compensates for the weaker rays at those latitudes. The traditional diet of the northern and southern latitudes is also more likely to include oily fish, the richest dietary source of vitamin D.

But now, most of us spend most the daylight hours indoors. Any skin that is showing is slathered in sunscreen to prevent skin cancer and wrinkles. We don’t eat much cod liver.  We get most of our vitamin D from fortified dairy products and vitamin supplements, but it’s not nearly enough to meet our requirements.

Holick claims that the majority of Americans are chronically and dramatically D-deficient.  Among those at particular risk are those with dark-skin, the elderly, the obese (because vitamin D tends to become trapped in fat cells) and anyone living about the 35th parallel (which runs through Arizona and Georgia).  That is the latitude above which it is impossible to manufacture vitamin D in the winter months, even (as Holick to colorfully pointed out) you were to stand on the roof stark naked from noon to 3pm every day.

So what?

Every cell in the body has a receptor for vitamin D. Low blood levels of vitamin D are strongly linked to increased rates of cancer, osteoporosis, chronic pain syndromes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Type I diabetes, and  hypertension.

In fact, if you chart deaths from colon cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple sclerosis geographically, you can pick out the 35th parallel by eye because the difference in mortality rates is so much higher above that line. (Deaths from multiple sclerosis are 100% higher above 37 N. than below it! )

There’s much more to Dr. Holick’s argument (about 280 slides worth) but suffice it to say, I’m a believer.  Vitamin D is now one of only three nutrients I take as supplements (along with fish oil and calcium).

Dr. Holick and others are compaigning to have the government recommendations for vitamin D increased from the current recommendation of 200 – 600IU (depending on your age) to 1,000IU of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) for everyone. Based on his data, I support that recommendation.

Note: Vitamin supplements containing vitamin D2 (calciferol) are only about half as potent as D3 (cholecalciferol). Also, be cautious with sources that contain both vitamin D and vitamin A (such as supplements or cod liver  oil) and be sure that the amount of vitamin A (retinol) that you’re getting from all sources does not exceed 10,000IU.

For more information on vitamin D and health, visit Dr. Holick’s site at http://vitamindhealth.org/